I wish they made some recommendations and application schedule. That statement alone makes is very hard to figure out which products are legit and which are not.
The average reader (me) just wants to buy 3 products, use them nightly, and move on, without doing hours of research.
I recommend The Ordinary skincare company [1] which makes everything on the list. For example, this what I use for retinol [2] and the polypeptides [3]. Just read and follow their directions carefully because they sell some concentrated stuff that can do some harm in inexperienced hands (you don't need those products so just read the product page carefully to avoid them).
Source: family member is a biophysicist and looks a good 10/20 years younger so I just follow their lead. As an engineer the no nonsense product lineup appeals to me (no affiliation).
From what I remember from Labmuffin's past articles, she doesn't give a specific nightcare routine because it varies based on the individual, so some trial and error is required.
Maybe that's a bit of a cop out, but if there were a perfect combination then there wouldn't need to be so many different products (marketing aside, even the same formulations of active ingredients are available as washes, creams, lotions, serums, peels, etc).
The most unbelievable part of this is that you have 10 "mid-to-senior level in "must have" positions like Data Science or Data Engineering" that only pay $150k each on average. I do not believe you.
I 100% believe them. I'm doing something similar but with 3x concurrent roles and am considering adding a few more. You'll be surprised how bad you have to be to get fired. I can go days doing nothing, then crank at a few hours work for one pull request on a Friday and people are happy.
I would not recommend this. This will not help a founder with 2-5m in revenue and a team of 20-40 sell. This will be a waste of time.
If you want mentorship and you are a founder, I would directly message early VP's of sales and ask for help. Also, read the great Saastr blog by Jason Lemkin.
We should have less transparency, not more. Right now the peer review process is single-blind, but it really should be double-blind.
Even if someone doesn't have a PhD or work at a research institution, they should be able to publish good science. Right now, that just isn't possible. And the opposite problem is also true: if you're a big shot in your field, you'll be able to find at least one journal that will publish whatever crap you submitted, regardless of the quality.
Getting that benefit only requires double-blinding during the review process. There’s no reason that both sides of the blinding cannot be removed (and also revealed to third parties) after the review process is complete.
I can't think of any real upside of that, but can think of a lot of downside. Humans, and especially academics (I've noticed a trend in my work environments: the less money everyone makes, the more power is sublimated into inane dick measuring contests) are petty, and less personal it is, the better.
2. The reviewers are each assigned a global permanent pseudonymous identifier—a UUID, basically—known only to them and some "Society for the Advancement of the Scientific Process in Academia" organization.
3. Every vote a peer-reviewer makes, and also every opinion they write about a paper, must be registered with the same academic-process org, whose job is then to collate and publish them to the Internet under the reviewer's pseudonymous identifier.
You'd be able to use such a website to both 1. audit the peer-review process for a given paper; and 2. cross-reference a given peer-reviewer's votes/opinions.
Additionally, the standards body itself could use the cross-referencing ability to normalize peer-reviewer votes, ala how the Netflix Prize recommendation systems normalized votes by a person's interpretation of the star ratings. (They'd have to ask peer-reviewers to vote with something more fine-grained than a binary pass/fail, but that'd be an easy change.)
The only thing I would worry about in such a system, is that academics might not want the negative opinions of the peer-reviewers on their paper to pop up when random other people plug the paper's DOI into Google Scholar, because a dissent on an accepted paper might unduly impact the paper's impact-factor.
You can't think of any reason? What about retaliation for being the less enthusiastic reviewer? What about the opposite, that you become known for being an easy reviewer who missed some obvious flaws?
You're still assuming that this happens right away. How about if the blinding is removed after 50 years? Then people studying the history of science would have the data, but it would have no impact on the careers of the people involved.
Indeed. I've seen some mightily acerbic rebuttals to other researchers' articles published as articles; I dread to think what a rebuttal to a review might look like.
I'm sure someone will say "well, maybe the acerbicness is the problem"; perhaps so, but I welcome the rigorous honesty with which some academics willingly write.
If you're a backend engineer without social skills this type of life style seems perfect and desirable. Everyone else can't wait to meet people and interact again. There's a reason cities have existed for thousands of years.
I see this type of comment all the time, but I've never purchased anything but legitimate items off of Amazon. What are you buying that you consistently run into fakes / knockoffs?
Memory cards / thumbdrives are the canonical example here, I think. The fakes are plentiful, and comingling ensures that you are playing roulette every single time you purchase one, and the fakes are good enough that they'll stand up to visual scrutiny unless you know exactly what you're looking for, and sometimes not even then.
I would never buy any discreet component of any kind from online marketplaces in general. It's gotten so bad that sometimes you just get packaging with no silicon inside. For some components the prevalence of fraud is nearly 100%. Supply chain integrity is a majorly underappreciated value of traditional vendors.
I mean, the obvious question is how do you know that you’ve only got legitimate items?
Some counterfeiters are of course, shit, so it’s pretty easy for most of us to notice when we order a board game and all the text on the cards is 20% off of centre. But you have to figure that somebody out there is capable of taking a high resolution scan of the materials and printing it without making obvious mistakes like that.
And like... in Apple’s testing over 90% of Apple accessories (chargers, cables, etc) were fake. Obviously they’re outwardly convincing enough that 90% of people aren’t returning them despite dropping $35 on a USB cable that’s worth about $4 from a third party. A lot of the counterfeit chargers are outwardly identical — unless you tear them apart to see where they’ve cut corners and risked burning your house down you’re never going to know.
I've ordered clothes, furniture (desks, chairs), books, supplements, rugs, and probably a few other things. Everything shows up, seems to be exactly as claimed, is functional, and has worked.
So my initial question still stands on what people are complaining is rife with fakes and knock-offs. It seems to be quite niche electronics (huge hard drives, computer components, etc)
And if the knock-offs are so good (in your game example) that the end user can't tell the difference (and no one else can either), what does it matter?
If I'm paying a 500% margin on a product, I want my money to go to the person that actually put the work in to create it so they can make more products, not to a counterfeiter?
But that's just my personal preference.
You've completely skipped over "90% of Apple products are counterfeit". They are not niche, are not easily discernible, and pose a safety hazard.
You can also easily see this in the reduced bargaining power of the bottom 3 to 4 quintiles of the American people, as evidenced by their stagnating or declining pay and higher volatility in the demand for their labor.
This is an unnecessarily combative post and assumes words spoken by the original poster that do not exist. The OP correctly, in my opinion, identifies a hypersensitivity trend in modern companies.
Framing it as "hypersensitivity" really misses the point - if companies want the more diverse part of their workforce to feel respected at their workplace, its not out of "sensitivity".
It's basic decency and a given that a professional environment should be provided to employees.
The average reader (me) just wants to buy 3 products, use them nightly, and move on, without doing hours of research.